Amankwah v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2017 HRTO 1309

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shawn Amankwah Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission and Jason Barber Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Esi Codjoe Date: October 5, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1309 Indexed as: Amankwah v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Shawn Amankwah, Applicant D. Beth Walden, Counsel

Toronto Transit Commission, Respondent Giuseppe Agostino, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1This Interim Decision addresses the production requests filed by the applicant and corporate respondent.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of race, colour, sex and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that he was assaulted by the personal respondent on a Toronto Transit Commission (“TTC”) subway car, and was later detained, assaulted, and issued a ticket by TTC security personnel.

Request for Contact Information of Witnesses

3By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed on July 14, 2017, the applicant requested the names and contact information for witnesses, numbers 2, 3, 6 and 9 in the corporate respondent’s March 23, 2016 investigative report.

4The applicant notes that the names of four persons referenced in the investigation report have been redacted. He submits that in order to prepare his testimony he requires the names and contact names of those individuals. The individuals are witnesses to the incident that gave rise to the applicant’s Application. The applicant wishes to be given the opportunity to interview the individuals, and summon them as witnesses, if necessary.

5The corporate respondent does not oppose this request and states that it will provide the information if ordered to do so by the Tribunal.

6Similarly, by RFOP filed on August 8, 2017, the corporate respondent requests that the applicant provide the contact information for a witness listed in his Application. This person appears to have witnessed the incident outlined in the Application, and sent the applicant a text message.

7The applicant does not oppose the corporate respondent’s request and advises that he intends to provide the information once it becomes available.

8Given the parties agreement to provide witness contact information their respective requests are granted.

REQUEST FOR ARGUABLY RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

9By RFOP filed on August 8, 2017, the corporate respondent requests that the applicant produce the following documents:

a. Any notes the applicant made recording the events of December 23, 2014;

b. Complete clinical notes and records from any specialist, doctor or medical care worker that the applicant has consulted with, been referred to for treatment, and/or has received treatment from, for pain in the applicant’s arms and wrist, and/or psychotherapy, including but not limited to any and all psychotherapy treatment he may have received from Chanderbhan Counselling Services;

c. Complete clinical notes and records from any specialist, doctor or medical care worker that the applicant’s daughter and/or the applicant’s girlfriend has consulted with, been referred to for treatment, and/or has received treatment from, including but not limited to any psychotherapy treatment they may have received from Chanderbhan Counselling Services, allegedly relate to or arising from the events of December 23, 2014;

d. Copy of the text message in the applicant’s possession from a witness that was allegedly present on December 23, 2014 along with the witnesses contact information;

e. The applicant’s York University File and the date when the applicant wrote the Law School Admissions Test (“LSAT”), his LSAT score and any and all admission material filed with any and all law schools that the applicant has applied to;

f. Costs incurred as a result of a phone that was allegedly damaged during the events which took place on or about December 23, 2014.

10The applicant does not oppose the corporate respondent’s request as outlined in paragraph 9 above, and advises that he intends to provide the information once it becomes available. To date, the applicant has only produced a copy of a LSAT score.

11As there is no dispute on this issue, the applicant shall provide the documents outlined in paragraph 9 to the corporate respondent.

REQUESTS TO EXPEDITE AND DELAY PRODUCTION

12In addition the applicant asks that the corporate respondent comply with its disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 earlier than the dates referenced in those rules. The applicant does not explain why the Tribunal should grant his request. Consequently, the applicant has not provided a compelling reason regarding why the Tribunal should deviate from the timelines outlined in Rules 16 and 17.

13The corporate respondent also requests an order extending the its time for delivery of witness statement and expert reports pertaining to medical evidence, until 60 days following receipt of to the applicant’s Rule 16 disclosure. It reasons that it needs time to prepare its responding materials. Rules 16 and 17 provide the same timelines for disclosure to both parties. These rules do not contemplate contingent disclosure. In the event that the corporate respondent needs to supplement documents at a later date, it can make a request to do so from the hearing adjudicator.

ORDER

14For the above reasons, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s and respondent’s production requests for witness contact information are granted.

b. The applicant and corporate respondent and must deliver to each other the individuals’ names, home addresses, e-mail addresses and telephone numbers that they have in their possession by October 11, 2017.

c. The corporate respondent’s production request for production of the applicant’s notes and a witness text message is granted.

d. The applicant must deliver to the corporate respondent and file with the Tribunal copies of the applicant’s notes and the text message by October 11, 2017.

e. The corporate respondent’s production request for production of the applicant’s medical records, and the applicant’s girlfriend’s and daughter’s medical records are granted. The applicant must deliver to the corporate respondent and file with the Tribunal copies of the applicant’s clinical notes and medical records concerning his arms and wrist, and/or psychotherapy, as they relate to or arise from the events on December 23, 2014 as outlined in the Application. The applicant must also deliver clinical notes and medical records concerning his arms and wrist, and/or psychotherapy for the six month period prior to December 23, 2014. These records shall be produced by October 17, 2017.

f. The applicant must deliver clinical notes and records from any specialist, doctor or medical care worker that the applicant’s daughter and/or the applicant’s girlfriend has consulted with, been referred to for treatment, and/or has received treatment from, including but not limited to any psychotherapy treatment they may have received from Chanderbhan Counselling Services, allegedly relate to or arising from the events of December 23, 2014 by October 17, 2017.

g. The corporate respondent’s request for production of the applicant’s York University file, and admission materials to law schools is granted.

h. The applicant must deliver to the corporate respondent and file with the Tribunal copies of the applicant’s York University file, and admissions materials to law schools by October 11, 2017.

i. The corporate respondent’s request for the details of the costs the applicant incurred regarding his damaged on or about December 23, 2014 is granted.

j. The applicant must deliver to the corporate respondent and file with the Tribunal the costs he incurred as a result of a damaged phone by October 11, 2017.

15For the above reasons the applicant’s and corporate respondent’s request to expedite and delay production are denied.

16I am not seized.